Difference Between Flexible and Rigid Constitutions
Difference Between Flexible and Rigid Constitutions
1. Definition
| Term | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Flexible Constitution | A constitution that can be amended or changed by the ordinary legislative process, without any special procedure. |
| Rigid Constitution | A constitution that requires a special procedure or greater majority for amendments, making changes more difficult. |
2. Detailed Explanation
A. Flexible Constitution
The constitution can be amended or modified like ordinary laws.
No special majority or procedure is required.
Parliament or legislature can amend the constitution by passing an ordinary law.
Typically found in countries with unwritten or partly written constitutions.
Provides adaptability and quick response to changing circumstances.
Example: The United Kingdom has a flexible constitution largely based on statutes, conventions, and judicial decisions. Changes can be made simply by passing laws in Parliament.
B. Rigid Constitution
The constitution requires a special or complex procedure for amendments.
Often requires supermajority, consent of multiple bodies (e.g., states, special committees), or referendums.
Protects fundamental principles and prevents frequent or hasty changes.
Designed to maintain constitutional stability and safeguard fundamental rights.
Common in countries with written constitutions.
Example: The United States Constitution is rigid. Amendments require:
Proposal by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress or constitutional convention, AND
Ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures or conventions.
3. Key Differences Table
| Feature | Flexible Constitution | Rigid Constitution |
|---|---|---|
| Amendment Procedure | Ordinary legislative process | Special procedure (supermajority, states’ approval) |
| Difficulty of Amendment | Easy to amend | Difficult to amend |
| Protection of Fundamental Rights | Less protected; can be altered easily | Strongly protected by requiring special procedure |
| Examples | United Kingdom, New Zealand | USA, India, Germany |
| Nature | Dynamic and adaptable | Stable and resistant to frequent changes |
| Judicial Review | Usually limited, as laws can override constitution | Strong judicial review to protect constitution |
4. Case Law Illustrations
A. Flexible Constitution Example: United Kingdom
No formal written constitution.
Parliament is sovereign and can enact or repeal any law, including constitutional matters.
No judicial review to invalidate legislation.
Case: R (Jackson) v. Attorney General (2005)
The UK Supreme Court upheld the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, confirming parliamentary sovereignty.
Demonstrates the supremacy of Parliament and the flexibility of the UK constitution.
B. Rigid Constitution Example: India
Constitution of India is partly rigid.
Requires a special procedure for amendments (Article 368).
Parliament can amend, but some amendments require ratification by half of the states.
Case: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Supreme Court ruled that Parliament cannot alter the “basic structure” of the Constitution even by amendment.
Reinforces the rigidity and sanctity of constitutional provisions.
Case: Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)
Strengthened the basic structure doctrine.
Affirmed judicial review powers to protect constitutional rigidity.
5. Why the Distinction Matters
Flexible Constitutions are better suited for countries with stable political traditions and homogenous society.
Rigid Constitutions help preserve fundamental rights and prevent whimsical changes in politically volatile societies.
Countries may adopt a combination of both (e.g., India has rigid constitutional provisions but also some flexible provisions).
6. Summary
| Point | Flexible Constitution | Rigid Constitution |
|---|---|---|
| Ease of Amendment | Easy; ordinary legislative majority suffices | Difficult; special majority, state ratification, or referendum needed |
| Stability | Less stable; subject to frequent changes | More stable; protects core principles |
| Judicial Control | Limited or no judicial review over amendments | Strong judicial review to protect constitution |
| Protection of Rights | Rights can be amended easily | Rights protected against arbitrary changes |
RELATED Blog
0 comments